Being rational doesn't make you right

[uglypeoplefucking]

It just means you have a subjective preference for how the world ought to work. Logic is as proscriptive as it is descriptive - it’s a way of playing with words and meanings. It’s a tool for explaining away seeming contradictions. But It doesn’t get at the truth so much as it dictates what the truth ought to be. To prefer things to be logical is an aesthetic preference - almost a religious one in some ways, as when we decide upon what is or isn’t an objective reality. Where we draw the line between the rational and the irrational is often arbitrary as a result, but it varies in any case. Logic is a specific way of arranging things to give them meaning, but to suggest that it is the BEST method of arangement is to make a subjective aesthetic assertion. Logic is, after all, self-evidently not the only method of arranging things to give them meaning. AND, just as there are multiple grammatically correct ways to express an idea, there can be multiple rational interpretations of perceived phenomena - meaning, among other things, that you can be rational and wrong. File that under obvious but frequently overlooked.

This could also mean that the truth might conceivably be irrational, and we then are all the more likely to be incapable of making sense of it precisely because it falls outside the limits of what logic by itself can determine.

The universe might ultimately be an absurd place. We would simply LIKE it to follow certain rules, and therefore assume that it does.

[Oughtist]

Too true, UPF. Moreover, rationality, and for that matter, intelligence, does not, in my estimation, equate necessarily with “wisdom” (cf. Philosophy).

I think what you state relates very well to something I was just reading in the paper this morning:

As for [Rex Jung, research scientist at the Mind Research Network in Alburquerque, NM], his research has produced some surprising results. One study of 65 subjects suggests that creativity prefers to take a slower, more meandering path than intelligience.

“The brain appears to be an efficient super-highway that gets you from Point A to Point B” when it comes to intelligence, Jung explained. “But in the regions of the brain related to creativity, there appears to be lots of little side roads wirth interesting detours and meandering little byways.”

Although intelligence and skill are generally associated with the fast and efficient firing of neurons, subjects who tested high in creativity had thinner white matter and connecting axons that have the effect of slowing nerve traffic in the brain. [Patricia Cohen, How do you measure creativity? New York Times]

Tortoises and hares. Nothing against hares, mind you…

[Chester]

GKC had this covered…

“Logic and truth, as a matter of fact, have very little to do with each other. Logic is concerned merely with the fidelity and accuracy with which a certain process is performed, a process which can be performed with any materials, with any assumption. You can be as logical about griffins and basilisks as about sheep and pigs. On the assumption that a man has two ears, it is good logic that three men have six ears, but on the assumption that a man has four ears, it is equally good logic that three men have twelve. And the power of seeing how many ears the average man, as a fact, possesses, the power of counting a gentleman’s ears accurately and without mathematical confusion, is not a logical thing but a primary and direct experience, like a physical sense, like a religious vision. The power of counting ears may be limited by a blow on the head; it may be disturbed and even augmented by two bottles of champagne; but it cannot be affected by argument. Logic has again and again been expended, and expended most brilliantly and effectively, on things that do not exist at all. There is far more logic, more sustained consistency of the mind, in the science of heraldry than in the science of biology. There is more logic in Alice in Wonderland than in the Statute Book or the Blue Books. The relations of logic to truth depend, then, not upon its perfection as logic, but upon certain pre-logical faculties and certain pre-logical discoveries, upon the possession of those faculties, upon the power of making those discoveries. If a man starts with certain assumptions, he may be a good logician and a good citizen, a wise man, a successful figure. If he starts with certain other assumptions, he may be an equally good logician and a bankrupt, a criminal, a raving lunatic. Logic, then, is not necessarily an instrument for finding truth; on the contrary, truth is necessarily an instrument for using logic—for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth and for the profit of humanity. Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”

[Anthem]

@uglypeoplefucking

…It doesn’t get at the truth so much as it dictates what the truth ought to be.

That there is Truth is a subjective aesthetic preference. Logic doesn’t care for truth.

@uglypeoplefucking

Logic is, after all, self-evidently not the only method of arranging things to give them meaning.

Correct, so?

@uglypeoplefucking

AND, just as there are multiple grammatically correct ways to express an idea, there can be multiple rational interpretations of perceived phenomena - meaning, among other things, that you can be rational and wrong. File that under obvious but frequently overlooked.

File that under “Logic: Yer doin’ it rong.” There can only be one valid rational interpretation of perceived phenomena from each reference frame. There can be several valid interpretations only if a percentage is weighed against them on their chances of actual validity in the absence of enough information.

@uglypeoplefucking

This could also mean that the truth might conceivably be irrational, and we then are all the more likely to be incapable of making sense of it precisely because it falls outside the limits of what logic by itself can determine.

You mean Truth again. Logic doesn’t care for Truth.

@uglypeoplefucking

The universe might ultimately be an absurd place. We would simply LIKE it to follow certain rules, and therefore assume that it does.

Logic often leads to absurdity. They’re not mutually exclusive.

[Chester]

I don’t get this idea about the universe being an absurd place, it clearly isn’t. If I drop a 15 pound sledgehammer on my unprotected foot it’s gonna hurt…it’s all so predictable.

[Anthem]

Why should it hurt?

Absurdity.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@Anthem

That there is Truth is a subjective aesthetic preference.

yes it is, but you put the t in caps, not me - the fact is people use logic as tool to determine what is true, or what is usually agreed to be the case, and they then often mistake that for what is True.

Logic doesn’t care for truth.

logic doesn’t care for anything, it’s people who care - my whole point is that there is no necessarry connection between what is logical and what is true - so i think you’re agreeing with me, whether you realize it or not.

@uglypeoplefucking

Logic is, after all, self-evidently not the only method of arranging things to give them meaning.

Correct, so?

so claiming it is the BEST way of arranging things to give them meaning is to express a preference, not assert a fact - one way we could have factual knowledge that something is the best would be if it were the only, which i am saying it self-evidently is not. that’s all.

File that under “Logic: Yer doin’ it rong.” There can only be one valid rational interpretation of perceived phenomena from each reference frame. There can be several valid interpretations only if a percentage is weighed against them on their chances of actual validity in the absence of enough information.

i don’t understand you here - my only point is that you can make rationally justified assumptions and they can still be incorrect. our knowledge of anything is imperfect, even when it makes logical sense - we’ll never be sure what constitutes enough info - we may have MORE evidence that points to the incorrect conclusion than we have pointing to the correct one, after all. Again, i am not talking about absolutes - i took it as self-evident that we can never have enough information for absolute knowledge, so it’s a question of what is generally agreed to be the case.

@uglypeoplefucking

This could also mean that the truth might conceivably be irrational, and we then are all the more likely to be incapable of making sense of it precisely because it falls outside the limits of what logic by itself can determine.

You mean Truth again. Logic doesn’t care for Truth.

yes, but people treat it as though it does.

Logic often leads to absurdity. They’re not mutually exclusive.

an excellent point - and another one that is obvious but often overlooked.

[The_Last_Man]

Then what does?

You demand exacting standards for “right” which are impossible by all accounts, so it is no criticism of reason that it does not meet these standards of yours.

“Only the fool would deny reason, not due to the limits it has, but merely because it has limits.”

As usual UPF, you want justification for your irrational emotionalism, your pop-culture sentiments and social stereotypical ideas, that you at every turn refuse to even call into question.

You see logic as “playing with words”, and you fail to understand the power of logic and reason to unlock the deeper aspects of your human nature, your instincts, your processes of thought and sentiment. You lack self-understanding, so you cry that there is no such thing. Typical.

Heres a hint: all experiences are encoded as data, information. This process follows mathematical and logical rules, such as necessity, sufficiency, inclusion/exclusion, proximity, numerical statistical analysis, either/or, deduction, abstraction, extrapolation, generalization, etc. Everything you have ever sensed, perceived, thought, felt, believed, experienced is information created, stored, processed and recalled constantly within the circuits of the brain. Reason and logic are the “keys”, they contain the language of this process within themselves, and thus are able to “decode” oneself. All you have ever experienced is nothing more than self-created, self-generated information, and so literally everything you are, have done, is contained within you and derived from what you are, your organic form.

You scold those who hold reason and logic up, because your own reason and logic are impotent to unlock any self-understanding within you - such is the utter lack of genuine sincerity, intellectual honesty or depth of thought that is you.

Dont blame others for your own short-comings. If you are capable of shelving your hubris for a moment, think about what I have said here. You might just reveal something about yourself by doing so.

[Faust]

Correct me if I’m wrong, ugly, but I take it that by “logic” you mean “the scientific method” - a specific application of logic. It seems that the context of your remarks is the subject of science, generally, yes?

[tentative]

LM,

Heres a hint: all experiences are encoded as data, information. This process follows mathematical and logical rules, such as necessity, sufficiency, inclusion/exclusion, proximity, numerical statistical analysis, either/or, deduction, abstraction, extrapolation, generalization, etc. Everything you have ever sensed, perceived, thought, felt, believed, experienced is information created, stored, processed and recalled constantly within the circuits of the brain. Reason and logic are the “keys”, they contain the language of this process within themselves, and thus are able to “decode” oneself.

I’d like to know how you KNOW this as complete irrefutable fact. We do know more than we did about brain function 10 years ago, even more than we did last year, but I haven’t read a single authority that would claim to know brain function so well to make the claims you are making. Are you that authority?

All you have ever experienced is nothing more than self-created, self-generated information, and so literally everything you are, have done, is contained within you and derived from what you are, your organic form.

I’ll buy most of that. Of course, it says nothing because it does not assign meaning nor does it make any particular statement about what is “right” in the sense of the OP.

[Nah]

@uglypeoplefucking

It just means you have a subjective preference for how the world ought to work. Logic is as proscriptive as it is descriptive - it’s a way of playing with words and meanings. It’s a tool for explaining away seeming contradictions. But It doesn’t get at the truth so much as it dictates what the truth ought to be. To prefer things to be logical is an aesthetic preference - almost a religious one in some ways, as when we decide upon what is or isn’t an objective reality. Where we draw the line between the rational and the irrational is often arbitrary as a result, but it varies in any case. Logic is a specific way of arranging things to give them meaning, but to suggest that it is the BEST method of arangement is to make a subjective aesthetic assertion. Logic is, after all, self-evidently not the only method of arranging things to give them meaning. AND, just as there are multiple grammatically correct ways to express an idea, there can be multiple rational interpretations of perceived phenomena - meaning, among other things, that you can be rational and wrong. File that under obvious but frequently overlooked.

This could also mean that the truth might conceivably be irrational, and we then are all the more likely to be incapable of making sense of it precisely because it falls outside the limits of what logic by itself can determine.

The universe might ultimately be an absurd place. We would simply LIKE it to follow certain rules, and therefore assume that it does.

I often think that we would get clearer idea if we examined what we want (consciously and subconsciously).

I think you want the truth. I don’t know what is the truth for you, exactly.
But I do think there is notion of “certainty”, “very high ;eve; of confidence”, “the lack of doubt”, or something similar associated with the truth of yours.

Now, I do think there are different ways to obtain the impression of certainty without using serial logical thinking process and that still goes along with what we perceive.
Personally, I do use them.

However, I think we do have the desire to think logically and have the logical certainty, as well.
And I don’t think you would feel good if you ignore this desire.

As far as I’ve observed. some people turn away from rational thinking when they start to understand that it would not provide what they want.
For example, religious people may start to say that logical thinking can’t do the job when they understand that it would deny some of there beliefs.
People looking for “truth” may start to see the arbitrary nature of logic or even relative nature of logic and turn away from it, too.
I guess, their desire to think logically wasn’t stronger than the desire to preserve belief or the desire to seek “truth”.

Coming back to the truth, if it’s based on the separation of truth and non-truth, I think you are dealing with a logical matter. And trying to avoid rational thinking might simply mean you would think with bad logic, leaving you with more confusion/frustration.

Anyway, I think we would be more satisfied if we follow the strongest desire, whatever it is.
If we do that , consciously, it’s even better.
If you really want “irrational truth”, then you may want to seek it till you get satisfied, or disillusioned.
Personally, I think it’s better to check the components of truth, though.
I have the feeling that most people are after the sense of certainty, in a way.
“Truth”, “fact”, “belief”, “reality”, etc are all related to certainty level.
Often, it’s not about the real level of certainty, but for simply boosting the imagined level of certainty so that one can feel “virtual” certainty, though.

As for drawing the line between rational and irrational thinking, I consider the presence or the lack of well structured perspectives to be the sign.
Very often, people think that playing with silly propositions makes logical thinking. But I don’t agree with that. I think the perspective of “what are we talking about (identification) based on how can we separate it from the rest (separation criterion) and the conditions and limitation that come with these” is required for logical thinking.

[James_S_Saint]

@uglypeoplefucking

It just means you have a subjective preference for how the world ought to work. Logic is as proscriptive as it is descriptive - it’s a way of playing with words and meanings. It’s a tool for explaining away seeming contradictions. But It doesn’t get at the truth so much as it dictates what the truth ought to be. To prefer things to be logical is an aesthetic preference - almost a religious one in some ways, as when we decide upon what is or isn’t an objective reality. Where we draw the line between the rational and the irrational is often arbitrary as a result, but it varies in any case. Logic is a specific way of arranging things to give them meaning, but to suggest that it is the BEST method of arangement is to make a subjective aesthetic assertion. Logic is, after all, self-evidently not the only method of arranging things to give them meaning. AND, just as there are multiple grammatically correct ways to express an idea, there can be multiple rational interpretations of perceived phenomena - meaning, among other things, that you can be rational and wrong. File that under obvious but frequently overlooked.

This could also mean that the truth might conceivably be irrational, and we then are all the more likely to be incapable of making sense of it precisely because it falls outside the limits of what logic by itself can determine.

The universe might ultimately be an absurd place. We would simply LIKE it to follow certain rules, and therefore assume that it does.

Spoken like someone with absolutely no understanding of logic or rationale.

Logic is the premise that a thing cannot be what it is and also what it isn’t at the same time. Without such a premise, no thought has relevance.

Rationale or being rational means that logical steps are rationed toward a goal.

In your title, the only thing questionable is the word “right”. If by “right”, you mean correct, then being rational exactly means that you are correct for the presumed goal. But it does not mean that there isn’t a better. On the ther hand if by “right”, you mean just or morally righteous, then the issue is dependent upon the presumed goal, not whether you are being logical about pursuing it.

[Faust]

It looks to me as if some here are missing ugly’s point.

To wit: James - logical method does not require that, in the world, “a thing cannot be what it is and also what it isn’t at the same time.” Rather, logical method cannot be employed unless we assume that a thing cannot be what it is and what it isn’t at the same time, for a given purpose. Logic makes no requirements of the world, but only, as ugly has said, of the way we think about the world.

Put another way, any value for A must be preserved throughout the argument.

But this is not to say that no thought which violates this convention has no relevance (to anything). It simply means that no statement that reflects such a thought can be subject to logic.

In addition, I will let ugly speak for himself, but I see no hint that he is talking specifically about morality.

Last Man -

You see logic as “playing with words”, and you fail to understand the power of logic and reason to unlock the deeper aspects of your human nature, your instincts, your processes of thought and sentiment. You lack self-understanding, so you cry that there is no such thing. Typical.

This is unwarranted. Logic can unlock aspects of human nature only if the premises used in the argument unlock that nature. Logic has no unique claim to this. Again I will let ugly speak for himself if he thinks this is worth responding to, but I see no specific claims about self-understanding in the OP.

[James_S_Saint]

@Faust

It looks to me as if some here are missing ugly’s point.

To wit: James - logical method does not require that, in the world, “a thing cannot be what it is and also what it isn’t at the same time.” Rather, logical method cannot be employed unless we assume that a thing cannot be what it is and what it isn’t at the same time, for a given purpose. Logic makes no requirements of the world, but only, as ugly has said, of the way we think about the world.

Put another way, any value for A must be preserved throughout the argument.

But this is not to say that no thought which violates this convention has no relevance (to anything). It simply means that no statement that reflects such a thought can be subject to logic.

In addition, I will let ugly speak for himself, but I see no hint that he is talking specifically about morality.

It looks to me that you entirely missed my point.

It is not an issue of accepting the premise of “what is cannot also be what isn’t” (the law of identity). If that premise is NOT accepted, any and every statement loses all meaning to any thinking creature. That law happens to be the fundamental law of logic (the only real law of logic). But regardless of what anyone wants to call “logic”, if that one premise is not accepted, no statement or thought means anything at all because what is being said or thought might just as equally mean the opposite of what is said or thought.

As far as morality;

ALL MORALITY ORIGINATED VIA RATIONALITY (even in the religions).

[Faust]

It is not an issue of accepting the premise of “what is cannot also be what isn’t” (the law of identity). If that premise in NOT accepted, any and every statement loses all meaning to any thinking creature.

That is something that you would know only by induction. You could argue for that, but you haven’t.

That law happens to be the fundamental law of logic (the only real law of logic).

That’s a controversial claim. Logicians themselves will tell you that there are more - and that the others are not derivative of the Identity Rule.

But regardless of what anyone wants to call “logic”

I’m calling it what logicians call it. If you’re talking about something else, then we are talking past each other.

if that one premise is not accepted, no statement or thought means anything at all because what is being said or thought might just as equally mean the opposite of what is said or thought.

That’s not correct. Contradictory statements can mean something - again, they just are of no use in a logical argument.

ALL MORALITY ORIGINATED VIA RATIONALITY (even in the religions).

That doesn’t mean that the OP is addressing morality. Beyond that, it’s an unargued-for assertion. There are plenty of those going around, but you surely don’t expect anyone to accept it out-of-hand, do you?

[James_S_Saint]

@Faust

It is not an issue of accepting the premise of “what is cannot also be what isn’t” (the law of identity). If that premise in NOT accepted, any and every statement loses all meaning to any thinking creature.

That is something that you would know only by induction. You could argue for that, but you haven’t.

I haven’t been asked to argue it. It is THE MOST fundamental inductive thought but more importantly it is the first rational thought. Without that thought, no rational thinking can occur at all. Just try it.

Assume for a moment that each word you read means something other than what you thought it meant. Add to that that each thought you are having really means something different than you think.

When and if you wake up from the mental abyss you will have cast yourself into, merely accept that by declaration words and thoughts mean what they mean and nothing else and it will all get straight again.

@Faust

That law happens to be the fundamental law of logic (the only real law of logic).

That’s a controversial claim. Logicians themselves will tell you that there are more - and that the others are not derivative of the Identity Rule.

Granted Aristotle’s laws of dialectic got skewed into being accepted as the “laws of logic”, but any logician who wants to take up the argument against the law of identity being the only actual law of logic is welcome.

@Faust

if that one premise is not accepted, no statement or thought means anything at all because what is being said or thought might just as equally mean the opposite of what is said or thought.

That’s not correct. Contradictory statements can mean something - again, they just are of no use in a logical argument.

Don’t confuse the issue at hand. I am not talking about the law of binary value “every statement must be either true or false”. I agree that statement was never a true statement nor was it ever a real law of logic. It was used so as to defame logic, but it was never a real law. Aristotle proclaimed that in DIALECTIC, one SHOULD not make any statement that has no truth value.

But the issue at hand is not of such statements but rather of the very definitions of words and concepts (thoughts). If a concept has no definition in that it can mean anything, then it has no value at all to anyone (as thought), whether “logical” or not. It is merely noise.

@Faust

ALL MORALITY ORIGINATED VIA RATIONALITY (even in the religions).

That doesn’t mean that the OP is addressing morality. Beyond that, it’s an unargued-for assertion. There are plenty of those going around, but you surely don’t expect anyone to accept it out-of-hand, do you?

Well you are the one who brought it up.

Besides, if I don’t make such blatant assertions, what will anyone use to fill up a web forum?

[Faust]

I haven’t been asked to argue it. It is THE MOST fundamental inductive thought but more importantly it is the first rational thought. Without that thought, no rational thinking can occur at all. Just try it.

But ugly’s very point is that rational thinking might not be the path to truth, or the only path. What you mean by “most rational inductive thought” I have no idea. I don’t even know what “inductive thought” means. All I meant was that you’d have to ask every thinking being to know that “If that premise in NOT accepted, any and every statement loses all meaning to any thinking creature,” as you are making a claim about what all of them would find meaningful.

Assume for a moment that each word you read means something other than what you thought it meant. Add to that that each thought you are having really means something different than you think.

That’s a different case. But indeed, when many people first read some Buddhist writings, the deliberate contradictions therein seem to make no sense to them. But they may find later that those deliberate contradictions do have meaning.

When and if you wake up from the mental abyss you will have cast yourself into, merely accept that by declaration words and thoughts mean what they mean and nothing else and it will all get straight again.

Logic is not concerned with meaning per se, it’s concerned with the relations of statements. Logic is useful only if those statements have meaning, but that is not the same as saying that statements with no literal meaning are not useful. They’re just not useful in logic.

For instance, we can imagine an argument with the premise “Jesus died for our sins.” This has no literal meaning to me. But it has been used in many a perfectly valid argument.

Another example “I want a pizza and I don’t, at the same time” can be perfectly meaningful, but I cannot fathom how a literal translation into symbolic logic can result in a useful premise in any argument. If “I want a pizza” is A, then do we not have A . ~A?

Granted Aristotle’s laws of dialectic got skewed into being accepted as the “laws of logic”, but any logician who wants to take up the argument against the law of identity being the only actual law of logic is welcome.

Say hello to Bertrand Russell.

Don’t confuse the issue at hand. I am not talking about the law of binary value “every statement must be either true or false”. I agree that statement was never a true statement nor was it ever a real law of logic. It was used so as to defame logic, but it was never a real law. Aristotle proclaimed that in DIALECTIC, one SHOULD not make any statement that has no truth value.

I don’t think it’s “the issue” that I am confusing.

But the issue at hand is not of such statements but rather of the very definitions of words and concepts (thoughts). If a concept has no definition in that it can mean anything, then it has no value at all to anyone (as thought), whether “logical” or not. It is merely noise.

This is not the issue, though. The rule of identity is merely the assumption by which we preserve the value of a variable throughout an argument. It has no epistemic function. Ugly is talking about the world - he is making the uncontroversial claim that logic lays no claim to reality as its subject matter.

Well you are the one who brought it up.

No, I didn’t. You did, here:

On the ther hand if by “right”, you mean just or morally righteous, then the issue is dependent upon the presumed goal, not whether you are being logical about pursuing it.

[tentative]

Jim,

But the issue at hand is not of such statements but rather of the very definitions of words and concepts (thoughts). If a concept has no definition in that it can mean anything, then it has no value at all to anyone (as thought), whether “logical” or not. It is merely noise.

Is it really an issue of no definition? Or could it possibly be that concepts may have multiple meanings depending on the context in which they are used?

[James_S_Saint]

Faust,

You use words and concepts as though they were independent droplets in the cloud of your mind, but all of those concepts are related in ways that you seem to be totally unaware; too many with which to deal. As I first stated, “spoken like someone with absolutely no understanding of logic or rationale”.

@tentative

Jim,

But the issue at hand is not of such statements but rather of the very definitions of words and concepts (thoughts). If a concept has no definition in that it can mean anything, then it has no value at all to anyone (as thought), whether “logical” or not. It is merely noise.

Is it really an issue of no definition? Or could it possibly be that concepts may have multiple meanings depending on the context in which they are used?

Same difference. If the definition is not consensual, rationality is lost.

[Faust]

tentative - I think there’s an example with Nietzsche. It would be nearly impossible to formulate an exacting deductive argument from his thinking. It would at least be extremely complex, because he regularly simultaneously uses a literal and metaphorical meaning to many words. This is why he is often criticised for contradicting himself. Certainly it would be mind-boggling to translate his entire position into a deductive argument. He makes many claims, but I don’t see how they could all be reconciled, as he made them, with each other in a way that logic could accommodate. A is just not always A in Nietzsche. And for this he blames language itself, and it is language itself that is the purview of logic.